|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Artemis Entreri, post #111 writes: Do we ever talk about British laws? I doubt it. Artemis Entreri, post #144 writes: Start a thread on ridiculous laws in the UK, I got tons of ammo on that one. It seems that your doubts were ill-founded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: Currently? According to statute (which Congress has the right to do), it's the National Guard.
quote: By statute.
quote: When the Legislature passes the statutes.
quote: On the contrary, it is quite specific. Surely you're not saying that the only way to understand it is if statutes were written in, akin to the Seventh Amendment's right to jury if the amount in question is twenty dollars, are you?
quote: Even though it specifically says so? So when an amendment specifically states that it is talking about a militia, it really isn't? The prefatory clause does exactly what it claims it doesn't do: Base the right specifically on it. That's the entire reason for it to exist. If it weren't, then the amendment would start with an ellipsis. And yet, no matter how much you may wish it did, it starts with a phrase that specifically tells you what it means.
quote: Yes...in service of the militia. Your right to have a gun is not for your purposes. It's for the purpose of the State. Thus, the State has the right to regulate what guns meet that requirement.
quote: But that directly contradcits your claim that "it but doesn't base the right specifically on it." Which is it?
quote: Irrelevant. Just because they don't "need" to be doesn't mean they can't be. The entire Constitution is set up via a justification.
quote: Not "just." "Because." That's exactly what it says, exactly why it was made, and exactly how it has been interpreted up until now. That's why State Constitutions go further. The Wyoming Constitution section on guns reads, "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied."
quote: No, it wasn't. Do not confuse modern grammar with that of 200 years ago.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You mean that part about the militia being necessary can be simply ignored? The Second Amendment does not begin with an ellipsis. It specifically states that the reason people need arms is for a militia.
quote: Indeed. And that means if we're going to be talking about other justifications for bearing arms, we're not going to find any help in the Second Amendment. The only justification to be found there is with regard to the militia.
quote: And thus the only one that it speaks to.
quote: The only justification it provides is limited to the militia. If you think there's another justification for owning a gun, you're going to have to look elsewhere.
quote: Irrelevant. Just because it doesn't "need" to be there doesn't it can't be. The Second Amendment does not start with an ellipsis. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
AZPaul3 responds to me:
quote:quote: But that flies in the face of all previous decisions regarding the Second Amendment. You don't have an individual right to a gun. You have a collective right. That means you don't have a right to a gun for your, individual needs. Instead, you have a right to a gun for the collective needs of the State. According to the Second Amendment.
quote: Not at all. Even if the State comes up with its own defense mechanism, that can fail and the people will be called upon to defend the State. And Scalia's claim that "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach" seems to forget all about the First Amendment. It's called the "Lemon test." But then again, Scalia isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
quote: Incorrect. I have said the exact opposite. The Court's ruling is fundamentally flawed. The Second Amendment does not say what Scalia claims. Note, even Scalia sees that he's screwed it up because he goes out of his way to point out that this ruling doesn't affect other rulings about the regulation of arms. When you have to point out that your ruling which completely contradicts all previous rulings isn't supposed to be interpreted to mean that it contradicts all previous rulings, then you know you've screwed up somewhere.
quote: All previous rulings have said that it is a collective right. Scalia's attempt to show those previous rulings wrong (and they very well might have been...decisions are made by people and people make mistakes) is laughable: He tries to do it backwards, starting with the conclusion and forcing the premises to fit...which means that the "prefatory" clause doesn't actually mean what it directly states. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:Currently? According to statute (which Congress has the right to do), it's the National Guard. quote:By statute. quote:When the Legislature passes the statutes. quote:On the contrary, it is quite specific. Surely you're not saying that the only way to understand it is if statutes were written in, akin to the Seventh Amendment's right to jury if the amount in question is twenty dollars, are you? Its not as crystal clear as you allude it to be .
quote:And: quote: So, contrary to your claim in Message 134 that I am not part of a militia, it seems that I AM a part of the militia. So right there you’re argument that the 2nd doesn’t grant me a right to a firearm because I am not a part of the militia falls apart and has been refuted.
quote:Even though it specifically says so? So when an amendment specifically states that it is talking about a militia, it really isn't? The prefatory clause does exactly what it claims it doesn't do: Base the right specifically on it. That's the entire reason for it to exist. If it weren't, then the amendment would start with an ellipsis. And yet, no matter how much you may wish it did, it starts with a phrase that specifically tells you what it means. quote: quote:But that directly contradcits your claim that "it but doesn't base the right specifically on it." Which is it? quote:No, it wasn't. Do not confuse modern grammar with that of 200 years ago. Yes, it was. It isn't important to my point though, but for your information, I was referring to all this stuff:
quote: quote:(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You mean that part about the militia being necessary can be simply ignored? The Second Amendment does not begin with an ellipsis. It specifically states that the reason people need arms is for a militia. quote:Indeed. And that means if we're going to be talking about other justifications for bearing arms, we're not going to find any help in the Second Amendment. The only justification to be found there is with regard to the militia. quote:And thus the only one that it speaks to. quote:The only justification it provides is limited to the militia. If you think there's another justification for owning a gun, you're going to have to look elsewhere. quote:Irrelevant. Just because it doesn't "need" to be there doesn't it can't be. The Second Amendment does not start with an ellipsis. The 2nd starts with a justification. That justification does not limit the right to that justification. Even if the right was limited to the justification, the militia, individuals not in the National Guard would still be granted the right to firearms by the 2nd amendment. Your position is indefensible. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed the size=1 text to size=2 (normal size) for the material quoted from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment...". That was a lot of fine print to try to read.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8552 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Exactly right. And this was the Court's reasoning in recognizing the 2nd Amendment as embodying an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. But that flies in the face of all previous decisions regarding the Second Amendment. Irrelevant.
You don't have an individual right to a gun. You have a collective right. That means you don't have a right to a gun for your, individual needs. Instead, you have a right to a gun for the collective needs of the State. According to the Second Amendment. The Court disagrees. They interpret the Founders’ reasoning as being there can be no militia without the individual right. The two are inseparable.
And Scalia's claim that "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach" seems to forget all about the First Amendment. It's called the "Lemon test." “Interest-balancing” in the vernacular of the Court is politically-based and not the same as recognizing legitimate State interest in regulation of rights. It is a fine line and I understand the confusion. BTW, Lemon did not seek to limit the peoples’ right to religious practice but limit the government’s rights to limit its exercise contrary to the First Amendment. This was a bold restriction against government’s attempts to overstep the establishment clause. Neither “interest-balancing” nor compelling State interest was established in Lemon. Better cites would have been US v Williams (Kiddy Porn v First Amendment) or Baltimore v Bouknight (Child protection v Fifth Amendment). These do place limits on Constitutional rights by compelling State interest.
But then again, Scalia isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. If you have ever met the man, as I have, you would know otherwise. He certainly is sharper in Constitutional Law than anyone on this forum.
When you have to point out that your ruling which completely contradicts all previous rulings isn't supposed to be interpreted to mean that it contradicts all previous rulings, then you know you've screwed up somewhere. Wrong interpretation based on a layman’s incomplete knowledge of the workings of the law. The Court is recognizing that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating the right, but only to the degree that it does not usurp the right in total. And that right is now an individual one. The DC ordinance overstepped this line. See Williams and Brouknight above.
All previous rulings have said that it is a collective right. Irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
skepticfaith Member (Idle past 5748 days) Posts: 71 From: NY, USA Joined: |
In Michael Moore's Bowling Columbine movie, Charlton Heston gave the answer.
Politically incorrect but true: Moore: Why does Canada with Gun Control Laws have so much less crime than America. Heston: Perhaps it has more to do with the people with different ETHNICITIES in America. Moore: WHAT ? WHat do you mean by that? Heston: There are different numbers of people of certain ethnicity in America vs Canada. ... Different backgrounds Moore: What are you trying to say. Heston: The interview is over, I have nothing else to say. Guns don't kill people, People do. You can kill someone with a pitchfork or with a car should we ban those too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Heston: Perhaps it has more to do with the people with different ETHNICITIES in America.
This doesn't make any sense, does the US have ethnic groups that we here in Canada do not? soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
skepticfaith Member (Idle past 5748 days) Posts: 71 From: NY, USA Joined: |
Simply look up US crime statistics:
Look at the breakdown by race on who commits violent crime. Also look up crime statistics on other countries by country and by race. Draw your own conclusions but clearly guns are not the issue here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4255 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
You're getting good at this hypocrisy thing, aren't you?
almost as good as you are at taking me out of context. though i have much to learn about your inability to stay on the topic at hand.
Have you ever seen a monarch up close or lived under a constitutional monarchy? yes. no.
Have you ever seen heroin up close or injected it?
yes. no.
Have you ever seen a murder up close or committed one?
yes. no.
Does driving too fast make a man especially qualified to set the speed limit?
yes. can you stay on topic or is that not possible for you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4255 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
everyone know's that answer, but they all want to be politically correct, or they have another agenda besides reducing crime.
thanks for acknowledging this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
So does the US have ethnic groups that we don't?
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4255 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
the ethic groups are similar but the numbers, and concentrations are much different.
i cannot say all that i wish to for fear of taking this thread somewhere else and the abusive way some are allowed to completely abandon rule #10 at will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
the ethic groups are similar but the numbers, and concentrations are much different.
So Heston's answer of:
Perhaps it has more to do with the people with different ETHNICITIES in America.
Doesn't actually answer the question. soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4255 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
it does if you can read between the lines, though most of us already know the reason why. this little game of beating around the bush is kinda dumb IMO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
it does if you can read between the lines, though most of us already know the reason why. this little game of beating around the bush is kinda dumb IMO. Then why don't you just come out and say what you mean? Is it because you suspect that you are going to be accused of racism? If you have the courage to stand by your convictions, let's have out with it. Mutate and Survive
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024